And if Weideman is taken before pick 7 who then ?

Btw, I answered a post of yours yesterday in case it's escaped your attention. You may like to reference Curnow's pace as a case in point.

He ran a 3.15 20 metre sprint at the combine. There's my reference. And if you'd like a written one, the poster for 'bound for glory' believes speed is a weakness as well as general footy smarts and positioning. He is only a 'poster' however. As yours were.

But you're right. I'd prefer to use my own eyes too. And from the vision I've seen, I don't think he's quick off the mark nor explosive. He has an athletic and lean looking lower half. His legs and glutes are certainly not the build of an explosive or speedy player, but one who excels at running long distances well. Which is backed by his solid beep test and 3km time trial scores.

If it's a Matthew Bate kind of speed you're talking then I agree. A slow chu-chu train build up to a speed that's eventually quite impressive.

Anyway, enough of that. You like the look of him, I don't. That's it.

The reason I would prefer Weideman is purely because he is the more natural forward. Has played the position longer, dominated the position for longer and therefore understands the position better. His football smarts as a forward would be better. Like Curnow he is really strong overhead, but is a true KP forward size at 196 cm and over 90kgs. He's aggressive in the air and the thing about him that I think our recruiting crew and coaches would love is his character and personality. Listen to him speak and he's the kind of guy you want at your club. Strong characters. Something that has clearly been a prerequisite for most of our high end talent since Roos arrived.

What makes you confident that Weideman will be around at #7? I would love to have him in the red and blue, but most phantom drafts seem to think he'll likely to be gone by our second pick.

I wouldn't be upset if we took him with #3, though I think we'll take Parish and then the best available tall at #7.

Nothing. I'm just hoping.

If he's selected before 7 then it gets interesting.

I'm just assuming/hoping Essendon take Francis and a mid. Gold Coast to take Milera or another MID/HB/HF. Milera perhaps. (Prestia is coming home remember and O'Meara's knees are no sure thing).

So at 7 we'll take Weideman.

Edited November 13, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Curnow & Oliver for me, Curnow is the best tall that will be available at our first pick, Oliver is a competitive bull, reminds me of Dangerfield...

He ran a 3.15 20 metre sprint at the combine. There's my reference. And if you'd like a written one, the poster for 'bound for glory' believes speed is a weakness as well as general footy smarts and positioning. He is only a 'poster' however. As yours were.

But you're right. I'd prefer to use my own eyes too. And from the vision I've seen, I don't think he's quick off the mark nor explosive. He has an athletic and lean looking lower half. His legs and glutes are certainly not the build of an explosive or speedy player, but one who excels at running long distances well. Which is backed by his solid beep test and 3km time trial scores.

If it's a Matthew Bate kind of speed you're talking then I agree. A slow chu-chu train build up to a speed that's eventually quite impressive.

Anyway, enough of that. You like the look of him, I don't. That's it.

The reason I would prefer Weideman is purely because he is the more natural forward. Has played the position longer, dominated the position for longer and therefore understands the position better. His football smarts as a forward would be better. Like Curnow he is really strong overhead, but is a true KP forward size at 196 cm and over 90kgs. He's aggressive in the air and the thing about him that I think our recruiting crew and coaches would love is his character and personality. Listen to him speak and he's the kind of guy you want at your club. Strong characters. Something that has clearly been a prerequisite for most of our high end talent since Roos arrived.

Nothing. I'm just hoping.

If he's selected before 7 then it gets interesting.

I'm just assuming/hoping Essendon take Francis and a mid. Gold Coast to take Milera or another MID/HB/HF. Milera perhaps. (Prestia is coming home remember and O'Meara's knees are no sure thing).

So at 7 we'll take Weideman.

I don't think he's explosive either, but his pace is fine for his type of player and certainly not the issue you're asserting.

There's a reason he's rated within the industry.

Edited November 14, 20159 yr by ProDee

Why unlikely?

From everything I've been hearing from our own recruiting staff (Taylor) to draft 'experts', it sounds quite likely that we'll go one mid and one tall and I'd like to think that tall is a natural forward. Which is why I like Weideman. I think he'll be there at 7 and I think he possesses the right mix of traits including his personality which will see him succeed at the top level. The question mark is obviously his injury history.

But I've heard he's having an individual combine screening for a few clubs, (including us) to see how he's progressed.

Given Taylor and co's record at finding some gold at later picks and the rookie draft (ANB and Vandenberg), and considering our all three of our new recruits have the capacity to run through the midfield, I'm not sure why we'd be drafting two mids with 3 and 7 unless they were players deemed to be steals.

It's clear we need future support for Hogan and we know the best forwards go inside the top 10 in the draft. Weideman over Curnow for me because he is clearly the more natural forward and if you hear the bloke speak, you'll see that he's the kind of character we'd want at the club.

That's just my feeling.

Because it seems Essendon have a lock on him.

Safe doesn't win flags.

And if you want quality talls then you pick them early.

I wonder if Hawthorn should have played it safe instead of taking Franklin and Roughead in the top 5 ?

That's one instance and everyone would be in furious agreement with you re Roughead and Franklin. And yes - the good forwards are usually taken early.

Far too often in the past though, we've overlooked the more obvious selections at various picks and it's come to bite us.

IMO Parish, Mathieson and Oliver all look fairly certain to have good AFL careers before them. And I want to see this club built an elite midfield.

There's a reason why all clubs don't "rate" draftees the same. The term "rate" has to be defined. Are you rating them on their potential to make an impact in the AFL, or are you rating them on their potential to make at impact at your club? They may not be the same.

GWS are a prime example of a club that has stockpiled talent, but if that talent isn't given an opportunity, they'll look elsewhere.

Recruiters list the draftees in order, regardless of type, and pick in that order, especially with early picks. It's not easy but it's what they're paid to do. Later in the draft, pick for needs may happen. For the record I have never said Essendon won't pick a midfielder at 4 or 5, I've said they'll pick who they believe to be the best 2 players available, regardless of type. I see you are struggling to understand this concept.

Recruiters list the draftees in order, regardless of type, and pick in that order, especially with early picks. It's not easy but it's what they're paid to do. Later in the draft, pick for needs may happen. For the record I have never said Essendon won't pick a midfielder at 4 or 5, I've said they'll pick who they believe to be the best 2 players available, regardless of type. I see you are struggling to understand this concept.

No, I just don't think you understand how the clubs tackle draft day. The recruiters may have a list in order on who they rate, but the football department don't just take their word for it. They have long discussions evaluating the merits of each player, including what impact the player can have on their own team. And as I said, a player's impact may vary from team to team. It's less of a risk if you take a midfielder despite having a glut of them at your club, than it is key position players.

The term "best available" is as broad as the term "rated".

No, I just don't think you understand how the clubs tackle draft day. The recruiters may have a list in order on who they rate, but the football department don't just take their word for it. They have long discussions evaluating the merits of each player, including what impact the player can have on their own team. And as I said, a player's impact may vary from team to team. It's less of a risk if you take a midfielder despite having a glut of them at your club, than it is key position players.

The term "best available" is as broad as the term "rated".

You (and others) have asserted that Essendon are guaranteed to take a mid, regardless of whether they rate another player better. Let's see if they do. Unfortunately my theory can't be tested one way or another, but your's can. If they do take a mid, either of us may be right. If they don't you are clearly wrong. BTW, Francis is not a mid.

That's one instance and everyone would be in furious agreement with you re Roughead and Franklin. And yes - the good forwards are usually taken early.

Far too often in the past though, we've overlooked the more obvious selections at various picks and it's come to bite us.

IMO Parish, Mathieson and Oliver all look fairly certain to have good AFL careers before them. And I want to see this club built an elite midfield.

With Parish the midfield will just about be set. How many clubs can boast our number of top 10 mids.

But after Hogan we don't have one quality tall forward. In all likelihood there will be a quality tall available at P7 and we will take him.

With Parish the midfield will just about be set. How many clubs can boast our number of top 10 mids.

But after Hogan we don't have one quality tall forward. In all likelihood there will be a quality tall available at P7 and we will take him.

OR:

With Weideman the forward line will be just about set for a decade and we WILL get a quality mid at 7.

If they rate Parish a long way ahead of a mid we are likely to get at 7 then they will take him at 3. But it's just as likely they will rate the tall they can get at 3 a long way ahead of who we get at 7.

And what if we decide to go two mids? Look, I don't know but I think it's far from clear and there are lots of valid arguments. I'm not at all sure the FD won't still be having these discussions.

OR:

With Weideman the forward line will be just about set for a decade and we WILL get a quality mid at 7.

If they rate Parish a long way ahead of a mid we are likely to get at 7 then they will take him at 3. But it's just as likely they will rate the tall they can get at 3 a long way ahead of who we get at 7.

And what if we decide to go two mids? Look, I don't know but I think it's far from clear and there are lots of valid arguments. I'm not at all sure the FD won't still be having these discussions.

Rightly or wrongly I'm convinced Parish is the standout "best available" at pick 3, which is why I'm confident he'll be a Dee.

But you're right, I could be way off the mark.

I'm the same, Parish and Weideman

You like Weideman and you don't like Curnow right? Which is fair enough, you've outlined your reasons well.

But if that's the case you have to draft Weideman at 3 and hope Parish lasts don't you?

Your reasons are almost identical to mine STMJ.

If we want a forward draft a pure forward. Not a forward who we think might also be a bit of a mid.

I don't see anything in Curnow that makes me think of Stringer. More like Waite

As I said before would a Weideman/Matheson combo be as good as a Parish/Curnow/Francis combo? If Matheson is rated just below Parish and Weideman is as good as what a lot of experts are saying then wouldn't the Weid/Matho combo be the best outcome and the most gettable?

As I said before would a Weideman/Matheson combo be as good as a Parish/Curnow/Francis combo? If Matheson is rated just below Parish and Weideman is as good as what a lot of experts are saying then wouldn't the Weid/Matho combo be the best outcome and the most gettable?

If we were to go Weideman with our first pick, assuming Parish is gone by pick 7, i'd be hoping that Oliver was still there. Would rather Oliver over Mathieson, as he appears to be so much more damaging and explosive.

Edited November 14, 20159 yr by Demon Disciple

If we were to go Weideman with our first pick, assuming Parish is gone by pick 7, i'd be hoping that Oliver was still there. Would rather Oliver over Mathieson, as he appears to be so much more damaging and explosive.

I guess the question is whether Oliver is a natural inside mid like Mathieson. Can't really tell from the footage. I'm pretty sure we will take a natural mid with one of the first 2 picks.

I am not sold on Weideman be honest. It would be a massive win for us if we picked Parish at 3 and Curnow slid to 7.

I'm the opposite.

Weideman for me, in the off chance the Dons get spooked by the prospect of another Gumbleton and realise they need mids more than 2 more forwards.

Curnow seems a bit off to me for some reason.

And for God's sake stay away from Mathieson.

Daniel Hoyne on 3AW last night said Parish is the sane choice at 3 and Ryan Burton is worth a gamble at 7.

I'm the opposite.

Weideman for me, in the off chance the Dons get spooked by the prospect of another Gumbleton and realise they need mids more than 2 more forwards.

Curnow seems a bit off to me for some reason.

And for God's sake stay away from Mathieson.

Agree to disagree on the first part then.

I agree with you on Mathieson. I think he is overrated. Poor skills, Poor tank and slow.. Won't be a top 10 pick and personally I think he could slide right out to the late teens.

Agree to disagree on the first part then.

I agree with you on Mathieson. I think he is overrated. Poor skills, Poor tank and slow.. Won't be a top 10 pick and personally I think he could slide right out to the late teens.

I thought it was just me who thought his highlights package was underwhelming. He reminds me of Liam Picken. Can win the hard ball but does nothing with it.

I'm the opposite.

Weideman for me, in the off chance the Dons get spooked by the prospect of another Gumbleton and realise they need mids more than 2 more forwards.

Curnow seems a bit off to me for some reason.

And for God's sake stay away from Mathieson.

Agreed, could easily be a flop.

Parish and whoever they think is best of Weiderman, Mckay or Oliver

I guess the question is that big guys usually take longer to develop, and if we take one now (ie McKay or Weiderman) we get them into the system earlier rather than later and get a 12 month jump on someone we may draft next year.

Big guys are a premium to trade for (ie look at Bulldogs and Boyd), so do the recruiters believe we can draft a solid Key Position Player to assist Hogan moving forward?

Only time will tell. Any player we draft could be a flop, whether it's a midfielder or KPP.

Fingers crossed Jason Taylor is all over it.

I guess the question is that big guys usually take longer to develop, and if we take one now (ie McKay or Weiderman) we get them into the system earlier rather than later and get a 12 month jump on someone we may draft next year.

Big guys are a premium to trade for (ie look at Bulldogs and Boyd), so do the recruiters believe we can draft a solid Key Position Player to assist Hogan moving forward?

Only time will tell. Any player we draft could be a flop, whether it's a midfielder or KPP.

Fingers crossed Jason Taylor is all over it.

Which is most likely to become a dominant power forward in their own right in case, god forbit, Hogan gets injured or leaves or something, our depth is non existent there at the minute.

FF Kennedy Weideman Garlett

HF Petracca Hogan Kent

I might be completely off here, but part of the reason I think we'd take Weideman if available is because at some point I believe Hogan will make a move to CHF. Dawes and Pederson clearly don't cut it as quality CHF let alone FF which is why Hoges played much of the year out of the goal square. But given his talents and attributes, I reckon he could offer a whole lot more if played at CHF.

The amount of times I saw Melbourne players ignore a leading Dawes was actually quite embarrassing for the guy. Unfortunately he just doesn't have the hands, foot skills nor the smarts to play that position well enough and Pedo is really just on our list for depth.

Hogan at CHF would be near impossible to stop. His tank is enormous. His field kicking is as good as anyone's his size. (Better than most of our midfielders). His marking I don't need to comment on.

He would be a nightmare for teams in that position and it would give our mids a whole lot more confidence when on the counter from defence.

Weideman is the FF who is aggressive in the air and a goal kicker. No fuss. His attributes best suit the position. Just your stay at home FF. It's clear he'll fill out and be a very big boy too which is important.

That's the vision I see. Could be wrong. But I feel like Hogan could be let off his leash if we find that true stay at home FF.

Edited November 15, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Daniel Hoyne on 3AW last night said Parish is the sane choice at 3 and Ryan Burton is worth a gamble at 7

I think Burton is way more of a risk than Stringer or even Lever last year.

He has barely got back to running after that horrific broken leg, and has done nothing to prove it wasn't a Nathan Brown career-destroying type.

You'd have to go off x-rays and previous form alone, and I think it's just too big a risk for such an important pick.

I can't see us passing up Parish at 3, and for that reason pick 7 is our most important pick.

We need to make sure we get a kid who can become Hogan's foil for years to come.

I'm sure there will be a few options available, we just need to select the correct one.

Oliver a firm no from me. Our priorities lay elsewhere.